ArticlePloS one2022
How to design an art-science program? Self-reported benefits for artists and scientists in the VI4 artist-in-residence program.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- From consultors to collaborators - An SOP for advancing ethics engagement in science.Synthetic and systems biotechnology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While many new programs bridge the arts and sciences, a data-based examination of art-science program design can lead to more efficient programming. The Vanderbilt Institute for Infection, Immunology, and Inflammation Artist-in-Residence program is a virtual program that brings together undergraduate student "artists" and faculty-level "scientists" to generate science-art content. We have recruited over 80 artists and 50 scientists to collaborate in creating visual science communication content. Using self-reported data from both groups, we performed qualitative and quantitative analyses to define sources for negative and positive experiences for artists and scientists. We also identify areas for improvement and key features for in producing a positive experience. We found that artists participants had more positive responses about "learning something new" from the program than scientists. We also found that for both artists and scientists the length of the program and the virtual nature were identified as key features that could be improved. However, the most surprising aspect of our analysis suggests that for both "way of thinking" and "science communication to the public or general audience," were seen as significant beneficial gains for scientists compared to artists. We conclude this analysis with suggestions to enhance the benefits and outcomes of an art-science program and ways to minimize the difficulties, such as communication and collaboration, faced by participants and program designers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.